Rush over to AVS and place your vote:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6870124#post6870124
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6870124#post6870124
Quanity vs Quality
- Thread starter gdarwin
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 2K
- Status
Apparently these are the two choices for that poll.
I want more HDTV, even if it's HDLite!
I want better HDTV, even if I have less HD channels!
I want more HDTV, even if it's HDLite!
I want better HDTV, even if I have less HD channels!
Tvfan24/7 said:
*I want more HD, at above HD-Lite Standards, but not 1980-1080, as no one has a tv that can show that yet, and if they do, then cost isent an issue to them so they will prolly have multiple hd sources.*
Translation, i want both hdlil and nat hd, at 1268 x 1080i
RIRWIN1983 said:
How about an option that says this below.
Get off your behind and upgrade your crap and give me more national HD channels at true HDTV quality with at least 19Mbps bitrates. For the premium price we all must pay we should darn well get both and not just one. Any company who can only provide one of those two options above isn't doing their jobs to say the least. This includes pretty much both satellite companies. Comcast has good quality but not that great a selection of HD but still better than most other cable companies. FIOS is very close on the selection and they are the best on quality.
Again the botton line is we should tell these companies to give us both or stop charging extra for it until they provide both.
Why should we all pay even 5 bucks a month (10 bucks is a joke) for HD channels that aren't full quality HD because that is crazy. Heck in Vegas I can get a hooker and still have money left for a buffet dinner with that ten bucks.
CPanther95 said:
I overlooked that but this is very funny. I guess he doesn't know that 1280x1080i is the current HD-lite format on DirecTV. I might take 1600x1000i with a decent bitrate. I still think most of the really bad picture quality problems and from the much lower bitrate than the actually resolution. If they offered a 1280x1080i signal at full bitrate it would look better than 1920x1080i at a horrid bitrate.
Has anyone drawn up a letter (with specs & links) that we could send to each of our States Attorney Generals? I know I'm not a sub at present.......but D* does call me to "come back"
Just wondering.Ill pass it along to my State Senators as well.........
If one State files a case against the providers .....maybe others will follow..
Barney
Just wondering.Ill pass it along to my State Senators as well.........
If one State files a case against the providers .....maybe others will follow..
Barney
Sometimes going this route can make things worse. Right now sadly I wouldn't expect to win a suit over HD Lite. As such no law firm would take this on as this would drain so much money and very little chance of winning. They just won't bother taking it in the first place. We would be better off yelling towards the media but now we enter the other problem of why would the media run this issue when it might hurt their next contract with say a Fox owned network. I hope everyone sees what I'm trying to paint.mthompso105 said:Yea, get lawyers and politicians involved, that will fix'm...
I'm for more HD channels at obtainable resolutions . . . 720p or 1080i. It makes zero sense to insist that sat/cable providers provide 1080x1920 transmissions when ALMOST NO ONE is currently even planning to produce television material in 1080p. OK, HDN is talking about it, but none of the major networks even have 1080p on the drawing board. It's going to take a few years before a lot of 1080p material is available. In the meantime the current HD broadcasts look pretty darn good on my 1080p DLP set. Pretty close to spectacular I say, and a far cry better than the standard 480p material. Give me more HDLite until the program material catches up.
I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be getting both right now, was that the D* plan to begin with when they launched the new birds?
This "dramatic expansion" as they call it, so far is a joke.
Call me crazy but how does launching two of four high tech birds, new dish and a new receiver with only 4 local HD networks be called a dramatic expansion?
A dramatic expansion would consist in
all major movie networks in HD
all major sports networks in HD
Basically anything being offered in HD!
That's dramatic in fact that would be jaw dropping.
Now I understand that there are contracts that have to be worked out with the stations in order to broadcast them to the customer, shouldn't that have been worked out by now?
Where basically back to square one before the birds went up.
Not enough plus watered down content.
WHY?
This "dramatic expansion" as they call it, so far is a joke.
Call me crazy but how does launching two of four high tech birds, new dish and a new receiver with only 4 local HD networks be called a dramatic expansion?
A dramatic expansion would consist in
all major movie networks in HD
all major sports networks in HD
Basically anything being offered in HD!
That's dramatic in fact that would be jaw dropping.
Now I understand that there are contracts that have to be worked out with the stations in order to broadcast them to the customer, shouldn't that have been worked out by now?
Where basically back to square one before the birds went up.
Not enough plus watered down content.
WHY?
Wafflekyd said:
1080p material has nothing to do with HD vs HD-Lite. It's all the 1080i material (of which there is plenty available) that is being downgraded. If you think they are downgrading 1080i to save bandwidth, but will pass through full 1080p material without downgrading, once it's available, that defies any reasonable logic.
Sneeky1 said:
D*'s plan never included any mention of full bandwidth HD.
It also is a plan that is predicated on the launch of 4 satellites - and only two have been launched. Those two are geared exclusively (primarily) for HD LILs, so the promise of 150 (national) HD channels won't really kick-in until D10 & D11 satellites go up next year. They will likely squeeze a couple (or few) HD channels prior to that, but don't expect any earth-shattering HD expansion until 10 &11 are operational.
Barney said:
On what grounds? I just laugh my a$$ off when people don't get what they want and instantly want the government to step in.
Considering the government is behind this whole transition to DTV, and the HDTV equipment purchased by the consumers came from the promises of HDTV, it isn't that ridiculous to ask for government intervention.
Having said that, the government specifically chose not to adopt a specific definition for HDTV broadcasts, so it is unlikely to have any impact.
Having said that, the government specifically chose not to adopt a specific definition for HDTV broadcasts, so it is unlikely to have any impact.
- Status
